 |
 |
 July 19, 2006
HEZBOLLAH AND THE IDF, PART 2....Conservative pundits are seemingly united in their belief that Israel shouldn't leave Lebanon until Hezbollah is completely destroyed. Earlier today I asked if this was even feasible: "The IDF spent nearly two decades in Lebanon until Ehud Barak withdrew in 2000, and presumably was doing its very best during that time to destroy Hezbollah. But they weren't able to do it. So what's changed since then to make us think that the IDF can do it now?" Via email, Aaron Rutkoff suggests that, conservative pundits to the contrary, utter destruction probably isn't the goal of the Israeli military:
I'm not quite sure how the bombing of Beirut figures into this, but what do I know? In any case, this sounds like a pretty plausible answer: it's not a matter of destroying Hezbollah, just a matter of bombing them back to their guerrilla roots. Time will tell if this works. —Kevin Drum 7:01 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (368)Comments
Conservative pundits are seemingly united in their belief that Israel shouldn't leave Lebanon until Hezbollah is completely destroyed. "Conservative pundits" tend to take their marching orders from the administration. The administration position has been exactly that; its what the US (through Dr. Rice) has cited as its reason for opposing calls for a cease-fire. So, really, nothing new here. I'm not quite sure how the bombing of Beirut figures into this, but what do I know? The bombing of the airport (and the seaport) seems to be (at least notionally, in official statements) directed at preventing Hezbollah from resupplying; other bombing in and around Beirut seems perhaps to be targeting things that mind sort-of resemble possible maybe rocket-ish things, like a water drilling rig in a Christian suburb that apparently consisted of a tube-ish thing on a truck-ish thing, and was bombed maybe because it might have resembled a rocket-ish thing. The important thing, of course, is that they drop bombs. The rest is details... Posted by: craigie on July 19, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINKI'm not quite sure how the bombing of Beirut figures into this, . . . —Kevin Drum It doesn't at all. Again, while Hezbollah is the defacto government in much of the south, which was the result primarily of the break down of the state during civil war years and because of generous patronage from Syria and Iran, Hezbollah does not run the utilities, airport or sea ports for the rest of the country. Israel is not just attempting to destroy the military capability of Hezbollah, which has been for the Palestinians in exile a much more effective political-social origanization than the PLO or Hamas have ever been in the occupied territories, Israel is destroying the infrastructure of Lebanon in general. For this, the U.S. should have condemned Israel from day one. Posted by: JeffII on July 19, 2006 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK
In addition to what is noted above, I take it that Hezbollah's central political offices have been bombed, and they are in Beirut. Presumably the residences of several key figures are also being targeted. Incidentally, there was a good oped piece by Amos Oz (Israeli novelist, and founder of Peace Now) in today's Globe and Mail. Posted by: LisainVan on July 19, 2006 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINKIraq invaded a neighboring country, Kuwait, in 1990 and the United States went to war against the offender, slaughtering thousands of the invader's troops. Israel invades a neighboring country, Lebanon, attacking hospitals and committing war crimes as defined at Nuremberg and the United States "urges restraint". No hypocrisy here. [By the way, anyone seen Condi Rice? Is she shopping???] Posted by: Stephen Kriz on July 19, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINKIsrael is destroying the infrastructure of Lebanon in general. For this, the U.S. should have condemned Israel from day one. If you believe this Haaretz column, one reason its not is because Israeli is doing this as a proxy for the United States. Via email, Aaron Rutkoff suggests that, conservative pundits to the contrary, utter destruction probably isn't the goal of the Israeli military Wrong again Kevin. Utter destruction is absolutely necessary because hundreds of Iranian troops are in Lebanon right now attacking Israel. "Hundreds of Iranian Revolutionary Guard personnel are on the ground in Lebanon fighting Israel, security sources say." Anything short of utter destruction would leave those Iranian troops in Lebanon which would mean Israel will have lost to Hezbollah. This cannot be. Posted by: Al on July 19, 2006 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINKdoing its very best during that time to destroy Hezbollah. But they weren't able to do it. Here's a test. Take a bar magnet. A positive pole and a negative pole. Now cut the magnet in half, spliting the two poles. Now throw away the negative pole. See, no more negative pole. What's that? There's a new negative pole on the positive half we kept? Hmmm. Let's try it again. And again. And again. You say it doesn't seem to be working? Well, here's a better test; start a small fire in your home to run our the pests. Not working? Try pouring gasoline on it. How's that working now? Not so good? You're obviously not pouring enough gas on the fire. Pour more. And more. Let me know how things turn out. Posted by: Thumb on July 19, 2006 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINKAt least as far as the neocons are concerned, craigie has it exactly right. Catch this scathing critique of the neocon bloodlust from Cato-at-Liberty of all places. Now, you could marvel at the brazenness of all this: the same people who helped lead us into the biggest foreign policy disaster in 30 years trying to push another war (or wars) on us without so much as a prefatory “sorry about the whole Iraq thing, old boy.” But the current squawking also strikes me as a useful reminder of how very, very important war is in the neoconservative vision. It is as central to that vision as peace is to the classical liberal vision. The future of the neocon movement is one of the three big questions arising from the present ME set of conflicts. The others are the future of the Hair-Trigger Pre-emptive Doctrine and the question of whether overwhelming force actually gets the job done at all. Regards, Cernig Posted by: Cernig on July 19, 2006 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK"it's not a matter of destroying Hezbollah, just a matter of bombing them back to their guerrilla roots" Well, duh. Completly destroying any organization is, um, hard. Israel just want to hurt Hezbollah as badly as they possibly can. If the IDF is able to completly destroy the Hiz, I'm sure they'd be thrilled. But there's no way the complete destruction of Hizbollah is anything more than a fond hope of the IDF. Posted by: mjk on July 19, 2006 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINKWhen the awful contracted word "attrit" makes its appearance I'll believe Israel just wants to drive Hezbollah back down to guerilla status. Posted by: Linkmeister on July 19, 2006 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINKI'm curious. How does Israels actions compare with the actions of the US in bombing the infrastructure of Serbia during the Bosnia & Kosovo crises. Did the folks now objecting to Israel's actions object to that? If not, why not? Posted by: carib on July 19, 2006 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINKHezbollah killed eight soldiers, kidnapped two and rained rockets all over northern Israel and you're asking why Israel is doing this? Posted by: cld on July 19, 2006 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINKto those not familiar with the NY Sun, as linked to by Al: a quick google will fill you in on the details. never actually saw anyone buying or reading the rag. they aren't guerillas, they are a resistance Posted by: michele on July 19, 2006 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINKHezbollah killed eight soldiers, kidnapped two and rained rockets all over northern Israel and you're asking why Israel is doing this? Its not like Israel was staying on their side of the border and being peaceful before Hezbollah did that. Posted by: cmdicely on July 19, 2006 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINKThumb You might want to do a test of your own. Take a Hizbollah rocket sitting in a Hizbollah weapons cache. Blow it up by dropping a bomb on it. Now. Try to launch the rocket into Israel. It doesn't work? Ok, drop another bomb on another rocket. See if THAT rocket will kill any jews. No? Dammit!
Don't worry. Halliburton will fix everything. Posted by: b on July 19, 2006 at 7:44 PM | PERMALINK"its not like Israel was staying on their side of the border and being peaceful before Hezbollah did that." Israel started it! Yeah, perhaps they did. They'll finish it too. Posted by: mjk on July 19, 2006 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINKHow does Israels actions compare with the actions of the US in bombing the infrastructure of Serbia during the Bosnia & Kosovo crises. Poorly; for one thing, Israel claims that it is not targeting Lebanon but Hezbollah, and that its problem is that the government of Lebanon is to weak and has failed to disarm and displace Hezbollah in the South, and that its condition for ceasing hostilities is that the Lebanese government do that. Its targeting critical Lebanese infrastructure at best tangentially related to Hezbollah reduces the capacity of the Lebanese government to do so, even after any success one might imagine Israel might have in disrupting the military infrastructure (fortifications, etc.) of Hezbollah and reducing it back to a guerrilla resistance. The NATO campaign, while it also targetted much Serbian infrastructure, was openly directed against the Serbian government. We didn't pretend we were on the side of Serbia, but just wanted them to take care of some rogue elements, so targeting Serbian infrastructure was perfectly in line with the overt goals. I'd also argue that, given the actual ongoing harm being done that each was aimed at stopping, and the prospect of success each tactic offered, the NATO campaign was proportional, while the Israeli campaign is not. I believe the objective is to teach sovereign nations that they have an obligation to prevent their land from being used to make war on someone else. If they do not, they will share the blame as if the renegades were their own soldiers. Perhaps even Mexico will learn from this. Posted by: Walter E. Wallis on July 19, 2006 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINKIsrael started it! You completely missed the point; the point was that the "They started it!" approach is rather pointless in this conflict. Posted by: cmdicely on July 19, 2006 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINKI'm curious. How does Israels actions compare with the actions of the US in bombing the infrastructure of Serbia during the Bosnia & Kosovo crises. Did the folks now objecting to Israel's actions object to that? If not, why not? You're not real bright, are you? Troll off. Hezbollah killed eight soldiers, kidnapped two and rained rockets all over northern Israel and you're asking why Israel is doing this? Posted by: cld Yes, as are all thoughtful people. There have been some 125 civilian casualties in Lebanon from Israeli strikes. Israel has also pretty much destroyed the power and communications grid in much of Lebanon, and rendered the airport and port of Beirut unusable. By comparison, just 13 Israeli civilians have been killed by Hezbollah rockets, with no damage to Israel's infrastructure. Furthermore, the Hezbollah rocketing was in response to Israeli air attacks and artillery fire. If the Israeli army is so fucking hot, why don't they go for an rescue/extraction of the kidnapped soldiers with special forces and necessary logistical and tactical support rather than just I believe the objective is to teach sovereign nations that they have an obligation to prevent their land from being used to make war on someone else. So, the targeting of civilian Lebanese targets is just terrorism, plain and simple? Posted by: cmdicely on July 19, 2006 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINKYup, I completly missed the point. And I agree with you. Israel isn't taking any of these actions because of a few captured soldiers or a specific rocket attack. They just find the situation intolerable, and are acting accordingly. Posted by: mjk on July 19, 2006 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINKcld, sorry to puncture your balloon. Its not like Israel was staying on their side of the border and being peaceful before Hezbollah did that.
If Hezbollah is acting to protect the interest of the Shiites populace of southern Lebanon, how is that interest served by intentionally provoking a massive military response from Israel? These people have nothing to offer but conflict. If some group in northern Mexico crept into the US, killed eight US citizens, kidnapped two of them and landed a hundred rockets in every town in the Southwest, and Mexico City could do nothing about it, we would be wrong to do anything as well? Posted by: cld on July 19, 2006 at 7:59 PM | PERMALINK If the Israeli army is so fucking hot, why don't they go for an rescue/extraction of the kidnapped soldiers with special forces and necessary logistical and tactical support rather than just Can we all agree to stop calling them "kidnapped"? The capture of an armed soldier in a war zone by hostile fighters he's in combat with is not a "kidnapping." Our POWs in WWII, for example, were not "kidnapped" by the Germans and Japanese. All those people around the globe that have been "disappeared" by US agents, though -- now they've been kidnapped, but the media never uses that term and says they were "captured." Posted by: Stefan on July 19, 2006 at 7:59 PM | PERMALINKsorry for the OT, but how'd Ralph Reed do in that primary? LOL, eat shit "Charlie/Doug". Posted by: haha on July 19, 2006 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINKSeems to me there is enough bombing angst for both sides. I don't see any right and wrong in this whole debacle, but I see the children once more being traumatized, if not killed, while our government does nothing to end the carnage! Once more I'm ashamed of our governments reaction to people dying! BTW, Al is still a hoot. I wonder what a family reunion of his is like. Posted by: Fred on July 19, 2006 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINKJeffI, Stop projecting! The only reason Hezbollah hasn't killed more Israelis is that they are not very good at it. They would probably kill EVERY Israeli if they could, idiot. Is your solution that Israel wait till Hezbollah gets much better at killing? NATO killed a lot more Serbs than Serbs killed NATO soldiers. Does that make the Serbs cause more just? Posted by: carib on July 19, 2006 at 8:01 PM | PERMALINKIf some group in northern Mexico crept into the US, killed eight US citizens, kidnapped two of them and landed a hundred rockets in every town in the Southwest, and Mexico City could do nothing about it, we would be wrong to do anything as well? We'd be wrong to bomb Mexico City in response, certainly. If some group in northern Mexico crept into the US, killed eight US citizens, kidnapped two of them.... Aaarrrghhh! They weren't kidnapped! They were captured -- the two words have very different meanings. Posted by: Stefan on July 19, 2006 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINKJust because some group says they're not evil doesn't actually mean that they aren't in fact evil. Correct in relation to Hezbollah, the Bush regime, the Olmert regime, and lots of other places in the world. If Hezbollah is acting to protect the interest of the Shiites populace of southern Lebanon, how is that interest served by intentionally provoking a massive military response from Israel? I don't think the assumption that Hezbollah intentially provoked a massive military response from Israel is necessarily justified; OTOH, as I don't believe Hezbollah is any more not-evil than Israel, in general, whether or not they intentionally provoked such a response, whether or not they did isn't particularly important to my overall view of the group. These people have nothing to offer but conflict. Again, true of both Hezbollah and the present government of Israel. If some group in northern Mexico crept into the US, killed eight US citizens, kidnapped two of them and landed a hundred rockets in every town in the Southwest, and Mexico City could do nothing about it, we would be wrong to do anything as well? Aside from the rather gigantic errors in your parallel that others have already addressed when the same errors were made in the recitation of the sequence of events in the actual case rather than a hypothetical parallel, the choice is not between "doing something: exactly what has been done" and "doing nothing".
Stefan -- I don't think that a terrorist group like Hizbollah can take legally take a POW. They're not fighting as a part of an army on behaf of a state, after all. Although, I'm sure those IDF boys are enjoying all the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Posted by: mjk on July 19, 2006 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINKCmdicely, Is your argument that its OK to bomb infrastructure if your opponent is a government, but not if its a militia that's PART of a government? Because, frankly, I dont find that convincing. NATO made mistakes too. Remember the Chinese embassy in Belgrade? Posted by: carib on July 19, 2006 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINKIsrael occupied a 20 kilometer buffer strip, not all of Lebanon. Fudging the facts does not help your argument Kevin. I think a sweep of the Shia areas, destroying enough of the rockets and heavy weapons, would be satisfactory for the IDF's goals. I also hope Israel publishes a detailed explaination of why they hit their targets to defuse some of the knee-jerk commentary about them being disproportionate to the poor terrorists. Posted by: minion of rove on July 19, 2006 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINKIs your argument that its OK to bomb infrastructure if your opponent is a government, but not if its a militia that's PART of a government? No. Aside from what's acceptable (which relates to the points about proportionality, prospect of success, justification, etc.), my point is that it is only remotely sensible to attack infrastructure of your supposed enemy, not that critical to the froup you are hoping will displace your enemy and exert long-term control to prevent it from becoming a problem again once the fighting stops. Re the Mexicio example. Stefan, about one thing I'm clear. The US would IMMEDIATELY invade Mexico and hit back at those guerilla forces with everything they had. Posted by: carib on July 19, 2006 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINKjust the facts, You're right, I got the sequence wrong, the rockets came first, then the kidnapping, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2266551,00.html Posted by: cld on July 19, 2006 at 8:16 PM | PERMALINKcmdicely "as I don't believe Hezbollah is any more not-evil than Israel"
Hezbollah is a recognized political party in Lebanon with representatives in the Lebanese government.
Where's the error in my parallel with Mexico? Posted by: cld on July 19, 2006 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINKThe proxy for the US makes sense considering the alleged provocation: the kidnapping of two soldiers. That seems less like a provocation than a pretext. Louis Renault's closing of Rick's when he discovers that the place permits gambling. The whole incident must be seen as the Iraq war was: something to bolster Republican domestic politics. With the Iraq situation deteriorating daily, Bush is calling in chits. (Hence his George Raft impersonation in the latest open mike incident. None of those things have been accidental.)Israel, it's widely believed, always wins. So, he's having the IDF bludgeon the Palestinians in a more public, explosive fashion. Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on July 19, 2006 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINKWell the bombing in Beirut seems to have three objectives: 1. Killing Hezbollah leadership Seems like a sloppy operation though. Too many innocents killed. Not sure why that isn't a problem for Israel. Thihk I'll cruise over to the Jerusalem Post to see if I can find an explanation. Posted by: paja on July 19, 2006 at 8:30 PM | PERMALINKStephen Kriz writes, Iraq invaded a neighboring country, Kuwait, in 1990 and the United States went to war against the offender, slaughtering thousands of the invader's troops. Israel invades a neighboring country, Lebanon, attacking hospitals and committing war crimes as defined at Nuremberg and the United States "urges restraint". This is the sort of thinking that gives the progressive Left a bad name. Israel invaded a neighboring country because that country could not or would not restrain an armed force that has been shooting at Israel. If you look carefully at that thing you seem to value, Mr. Kriz, that is, 'international law', you'll see that a country has an obligation to keep armed gangs from attacking other countries from within its borders. Countries that fail to do that may fairly be attacked. Lebanon can't restrain Hezbollah, indeed hasn't been able to since the Israelis pulled out of Lebanon in 2000, and the Hezzies have been firing rockets into Israel. They then staged a military operation to kill and seize (not kidnap, that's what civilians do) Israeli soldiers. Under 'international law', Israel has every right to go after Hezbollah, and that's what they're doing. Their response has been reasonably proportional and they're doing their best to avoid civilian casualties (it doesn't help that the Lions of Islam have been hiding amongst the wimmin and kiddies). So before you spout off further about 'Nuremberg', you might want to learn a thing or two. Posted by: Steve White on July 19, 2006 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINKJeff II asks, If the Israeli army is so fucking hot, why don't they go for an rescue/extraction of the kidnapped soldiers with special forces and necessary logistical and tactical support rather than just Because it can't be done? Because they don't know where the soldiers are? Because Hezbollah isn't completely incompetent and knows a thing or two about hiding the soldiers they seized (not kidnapped)? The Israelis aren't supermen, Jeff. The captured soldiers are well tucked away by Hezbollah -- this was an operation the Hezzies planned carefully for a long time in advance. So the Israelis are doing the next best thing, which is to hammer Hezbollah hard. I'm not connected to the inner workings of the Israeli government (even though I'm a neo-con!) but it does seem as if the current goal is to weaken Hezbollah enough to render them non-threatening for a while. As to all the whining about the Lebanese civilians dead in this operation, the Israelis are working hard to prevent that but once again, they aren't perfect, and if the Lions of Islam are hiding amongst the wimmin and kiddies, then there are going to be some civilian casualties. By the way, the Geneva Conventions prohibit Hezbollah from hiding amongst the civilians. Just a thought. Posted by: Steve White on July 19, 2006 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINKIf some group in northern Mexico crept into the US, killed eight US citizens, kidnapped two of them and landed a hundred rockets in every town in the Southwest, and Mexico City could do nothing about it, we would be wrong to do anything as well? Pancho Villa Punitive Expedition Posted by: Pancho V. on July 19, 2006 at 8:55 PM | PERMALINKFred writes, I don't see any right and wrong in this whole debacle, but I see the children once more being traumatized, if not killed, while our government does nothing to end the carnage! And just what would you have us do? We have zero influence on Hezbollah. We have had zero influence on them for years and years. Ditto on Iran since the Carter administration. Virtually zero on Syria. We have some influence with Lebanon but they have virtually no influence on Hezbollah. The only country with whom we have any significant influence in this fight is Israel. And the only way to do what you apparently want done is to force them to stop. That lets Hezbollah get away with firing rockets at them and seizing their soldiers. You might imagine that the Israelis won't agree to that. So tell me: what would you have us do? I think GWB is doing the right thing here: let the dust settle and then figure out what to do. Posted by: Steve White on July 19, 2006 at 8:57 PM | PERMALINKI'm not quite sure how the bombing of Beirut figures into this, but what do I know? Reportedly, Beirut has their headquarters (money, telecommunications center, senior leaders, gasoline stores, etc) and thousands of their rockets. Posted by: republicrat on July 19, 2006 at 9:03 PM | PERMALINKOn the proxy argument: there's a proxy here, but it isn't Israel. There are two proxies: Hamas and Hezbollah. Hezbollah is almost entirely a creation of Iran, and Hamas has, since winning power in the election, become more dependent on Iran. Iran is in a tight spot: they need more time to develop nuclear weapons and nuclear-capable missiles. They've played the EU for about all they're going to get, and it's getting uncomfortable with the UN, IAEA, etc. They can continue to stall, bluster, threaten and troll, but at some point (end of 2006? mid-2007?) their bluff is going to be called by the UNSC. Now you might argue that the UNSC is toothless (why, I argue that myself!), given that it couldn't enforce the Iraq resolutions, etc. But the Mad Mullahs can't be 100% sure that the crazy cowboy in the White House wouldn't come after them. And so they use their proxies. Create a diversion, tie up the world, push the MSM headlines in a different direction, and create a new set of headaches for the US, UN and EU. Every day that works is another day the Iranian scientists and engineers make progress. And that's at least as likely a proxy scenario as anything else conjured up here. Posted by: Steve White on July 19, 2006 at 9:03 PM | PERMALINKUtter destruction is absolutely necessary because hundreds of Iranian troops are in Lebanon right now attacking Israel. I haven't seen enough evidence of this yet to be persuaded, but the possibility can't be denied. Posted by: republicrat on July 19, 2006 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINKThe only country with whom we have any significant influence in this fight is Israel. Haha!!! That's a good one. Posted by: bill on July 19, 2006 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINKI don't see any right and wrong in this whole debacle, but I see the children once more being traumatized, if not killed, while our government does nothing to end the carnage! Would you be less disappointed if Hezbullah used their rocket armory to pulverize Tel Aviv and Haifa?Did you think they were accumulating rockets, and storing them in civilian homes, for peaceful purposes? Nobody likes burning children, but the government of Iran has promised to destroy Israel, has armed Hezbollah to do it, and has trained Hezbollah to operate the rockets, and Hezbollah has stored the rockets in civilian establishments. Posted by: republicrat on July 19, 2006 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINKDo you really want to stand by that statement? Yes, I stand by the statement that Hezbollah is no more not-evil than Israel. You might want to retract it after the next WTC type incident they pull off in this country. I'm not sure which "they" you are referring to, since neither Hezbollah nor Israel has pulled off a first WTC-type incident in the US so as to make your statement make any sense with either of those parties as the "they" in your sentence. Leaving that point of historical fact, the only of those parties that would force me to reconsider that statement if they did conduct a first (much less a "next") WTC-type incident in the US would be Israel, since that would suggest the statement was wrong and Hezbollah is, contrary to my statement, quite a bit more not-evil, at least toward the US, than Israel. So you must be trying to claim that Israel is inclined to commit terrorist acts against the US on the US mainland, if you are suggesting that I should rethink that statement on that basis. At this point, the standard thing to do would be to accuse you of being an anti-Semite. Though perhaps the problem is just that you didn't read what I wrote: do you really think Hezbollah is more not-evil than Israel, as your challenging my statement suggests? And just what would you have us do? Respond to Lebanon's call for Security Council action and an international presence by backing European proposals for binding UNSC resolution calling for a mandatory cease-fire and the deployment of a stabilization force, pushing for the strongest possible mandate for such a force to disarm and/or displace Hezbollah's military wing and provide a strong buffer against incursions or attacks in either direction along the Lebanon-Israel border with authority to pursue and destroy any attackers, until the Lebanese military is prepared to provide security in that region, and the necessary mutual trust can be built between Lebanon and Israel to transition the international presence back to a monitoring role and eventually terminate it altogether. Posted by: cmdicely on July 19, 2006 at 9:47 PM | PERMALINKcarib writes: They're different. The government of Serbia was directly responsible for the ongoing massacre of thousands of Muslims civilians. The fact that you even bring up the comparison shows you have little grasp of the real issues here. Posted by: Andy on July 19, 2006 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINKYou might want to retract it after the next WTC type incident they pull off in this country. Did Hezbollah pull off a WTC incident in this country and I just plum missed it? Posted by: Gregory on July 19, 2006 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINKSteve White: Oh, I understand Israel's history quite well, thank you. Penning the Palestinians up like animals, stealing or blocking their access to scarce fresh water, bulldozing their dwellings and generally depriving them of the basic human dignity all human beings deserve. Osama bin Laden understands this too. That is why he hates Israel, and due to our unwavering support of Israel and their state-sponsored terrorism, he hates us too. It's really very simple. As Moshe Dayan famously said of the Palestinians, "They can live like dogs, or they can leave." Not a prescription for a lasting peace, in my opinion. Peace is the only anwer. Stephen Kriz Posted by: Stephen Kriz on July 19, 2006 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINKOther things aside, Kevin you seemed to have missed the point that the 1982 invasion created Hizballah. Hizballah didn't exist before then. Posted by: Jeff on July 19, 2006 at 10:28 PM | PERMALINK…Ok, drop another bomb on another rocket. See if THAT rocket will kill any jews. No? Dammit! mjk 7:42 PMWhere are the rockets? [photo warning: images of dead people] Hezbollah killed eight soldiers, kidnapped two and rained rockets all over northern Israel and you're asking why Israel is doing this?cld 7:37 PMCompare the number of Palestinians killed Israel could easily do a prisoner swap, but killing Lebanonese and their children is more satisfying. Yeah, perhaps they did. They'll finish it too. mjk 7:46 PMThey've been killing Palestinians for over 80 years, and the people are still resisting Israeli terrorism …at they have an obligation to prevent their land from being used to make war on someone else. … Perhaps even Mexico will learn from this.Walter E. Wallis 7:49 PMHezbollah war born as a resistance movement when Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 and killed over 20,000 Lebanonese, many by outright atrocities. Every time you look to the history of the region, you find Israeli actions leading to reactions. Just because some group says they're not evil doesn't actually mean that they aren't in fact evil….cld 7:59 PMYou are referring to neo-cons, George W. Bush and Israel. NATO killed a lot more Serbs than Serbs killed NATO soldiers. Does that make the Serbs cause more just? carib 8:01 PMSerbs were ethnically cleansing people in Kosova, remember? Israel has ethnically cleansed Palestinians from Palestine. See where the similarity lies? As to all the whining about the Lebanese civilians dead in this operation, the Israelis are working hard to prevent that but once again…Steve White 8:50 PMCivilians including children have long been targets for the IDF. So tell me: what would you have us do? I think GWB is doing the right thing here… Steve White 8:57 PM |George W. Bush is working hard to increase terrorism in the region by his total backing of attacks on innocent civilians. For every one killed, 10 will join America's enemies. What to do? It's simple: a prisoner swap. Israel has thousands of Lebanonese and Palestinian illegally imprisoned. Set them free, force Israel to make peace instead of stealing more of the occupied territories. Nobody likes burning children, but the government of Iran has promised to destroy Israel, has armed Hezbollah to do it, and has trained Hezbollah to operate the rockets, and Hezbollah has stored the rockets in civilian establishments.republicrat 9:21 PM |You have no idea where Hezbollah stores its rockets (hint, where they fire them, in the desert). Israel has bombed Lebanon military installation, hospitals, and numerous other clearly civilian sites. Also, you statement on the statement of the government of is inaccurate. The Iranians have always stated they will not strike first, but, if attacked, will defend themselves by any means available. Posted by: Mike on July 19, 2006 at 10:40 PM | PERMALINK cmdicely writes, Respond to Lebanon's call for Security Council action and an international presence by backing European proposals for binding UNSC resolution calling for a mandatory cease-fire and the deployment of a stabilization force, ... And who exactly is going to make up this 'stabilization force'? We already had one of those in southern Lebanon, it was called UNIFIL. Worked well, huh? It was 2,000 soldiers who basically drank tea and watched Hezbollah do what they wanted. Why would you think that a new force is going to be any different than the old force? And who's going to provide the soldiers for the 'stabilization force'? I'll send you a dollar if a single French, German or Spanish soldier ends up in it. ... pushing for the strongest possible mandate for such a force to disarm and/or displace Hezbollah's military wing ... Right, that's the 'stabilization force' again. Sorry, but the UN doesn't have a very good record in this regard. UN peacekeepers can work when everyone involved wants peace. But when at least one side wants to fight the UN is pretty much powerless to stop that. Hezbollah has already said that they won't disarm, ever, so the only way you're going to accomplish that is to take their guns from their cold, dead hands. You really think a UN 'stabilization force' is going to do that? ... and provide a strong buffer against incursions or attacks in either direction along the Lebanon-Israel border with authority to pursue and destroy any attackers, ... We had one of those. UNIFIL. Didn't work. Why would you expect version 2 to work? ... until the Lebanese military is prepared to provide security in that region, and the necessary mutual trust can be built between Lebanon and Israel to transition the international presence back to a monitoring role and eventually terminate it altogether. I don't doubt the Lebanese would like just that. From what I read, a good number of the Lebanese pretty much hate Hezbollah and want them gone. Problem is, the Lebanese who like Hezbollah are the Shi'a, and they're around 40% of the population. And they're concentrated in the south. You'd have to persuade the Shi'a Lebanese to give in and rat out Hezbollah, and I see no indication whatsoever that they're willing to do that. I appreciate your intent, but a UN sponsored 'stabilization force' is a dead-bang loser from day one. Posted by: Steve White on July 19, 2006 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINKI appreciate your intent, but a UN sponsored 'stabilization force' is a dead-bang loser from day one. plus, you don't get the added benefit of killing arab civilians ... something of which I can only assume you tacitly (if not actively) approve. Posted by: Nads on July 19, 2006 at 10:53 PM | PERMALINKcmdicely, there's already a U.N. force in southern Lebanon. They're no more use than U.N. forces anywhere else. Mostly, they like to watch. Posted by: kofi on July 19, 2006 at 10:53 PM | PERMALINKNads: plus, you don't get the added benefit of killing arab civilians ... something of which I can only assume you tacitly (if not actively) approve. Nope, nice try at a smear but you're wrong. I don't approve of killing civilians. I do understand that war is hell and that sometimes civilians get killed. The Israelis seem to be trying to avoid this, but it's hard when the Hezzies hide the bunkers and rocket launchers smack dab in the middle of the civilians. I blame the Hezzies for that. Posted by: Steve White on July 19, 2006 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINKNope, nice try at a smear but you're wrong. I don't approve of killing civilians. I do understand that war is hell and that sometimes civilians get killed. The Israelis seem to be trying to avoid this, but it's hard when the Hezzies hide the bunkers and rocket launchers smack dab in the middle of the civilians. I blame the Hezzies for that. nice try at being an apologist ... you missed your calling. You would clearly feel more comfortable 60 years earlier defending nazi atrocities. Posted by: Nads on July 19, 2006 at 11:00 PM | PERMALINKAnd who exactly is going to make up this 'stabilization force'? Many EU nations have already offered troops, Russia apparently is considering doing so, as well. We already had one of those in southern Lebanon, it was called UNIFIL. No, UNIFIL was (and is; UNIFIL is still in Lebanon, and its current mandate expires at the end of this month) not a stabilization force. It is a peacekeeping/monitoring force with no mandate for action, only to monitor and report. The current calls from the EU, Lebanon, and others are for a presence with a mandate that allows it to act as a stabilization, rather than peacekeeping force. Worked well, huh? It was 2,000 soldiers who basically drank tea and watched Hezbollah do what they wanted. Why would you think that a new force is going to be any different than the old force? Well, because (1) it would be larger, and (2) it would actually have a mandate to do something, rather than one that prevents it from doing anything but reporting violations. ... and for someone who doesn't approve of killing civilians, you sure are adept at making excuses for doing just that. perhaps the assumption that right wingers are all closet racists willing to excuse any atrocity committed by either us or israel against the foreign "other" is accurate, after all. Posted by: Nads on July 19, 2006 at 11:04 PM | PERMALINKRespond to Lebanon's call for Security Council action and an international presence by backing European proposals for binding UNSC resolution calling for a mandatory cease-fire and the deployment of a stabilization force, Nice sentiment but you have to know this is impossible for several reasons. The UN is not capable of, nor does it have the desire for, providing a stabilization force with the offensive capabilities needed to provide any semblence of stability. Further, the next least likely group to provide such a force would be the EU. They have neither the will nor the means. The Iranians would just love to smack them right back to Europe. The last thing the Iranians or Syrians would accept is a disarmed Hezbollah in Lebanon. They want Lebanon radicalized and under their control. They can easily stop UN progress with a well placed bribe to Russia or China and/or one of the rotating members for the SC. The gist of Kevis post is quite right. Israel is not going to re-occupy Southern Lebanon on the gound. It plays to Hezbollah's tactical advantages as well as political advantages. This is an honest attempt to seriously degrade Hezbollahs offensive capabilities, get their men back, and continue to change te political environment. This episode has been striking in many regards. Bush has peeled off Merkel who's taken a decidedly different position from the French. The EU is hardly united. Most of the condemnation is been unethusiastic boilerplate and many of the usual Israel bashers have been silent. We see a split in the middle east with the Arab states very unhappy with the roll of Iran and not supporting Hezbollah. As several conservatives have pointed out. This is not the classic Israeli-Arab conflict. This is Jewish-Islamic. This is GWOT. There's no role here for the UN. They'll issue the usual statement abliet much toned down toward Israel and more critical of terrorists than is usual. There's no role here for the UN. Israel doe not view them as an honest broker and neither side considers their military capabilities credible. The Jews know if at anytime Hezbollah decided they wanted the EU to leave, which would happen the same day the EU started doing it's job, if it ever did, the terrorists would kill a small number of their men and they would fold up. The shame of it is Hezbollah might do it just for sport. To see how quickly they get the EU to fold. Jacques made a nice suggestion he knew would never be acted upon. He knows Israel would wrap this up long before any serious debate was held. It's just a cheap political trick. Posted by: rdw on July 19, 2006 at 11:11 PM | PERMALINK
If the Government of Northern Mexico conquered much of the US south for 20 years, killed lots of people and finally withdrew, taking lots of US captives, occasionally bombing us, would the US be justified in taking 2 armed Mexican soldiers as POWs ? I detest the way in which people say "because the US would not tolerate situation X, Israel should not either". THe fact is that the US has always had different rules for itself and the rest of thw world. Posted by: Jont on July 19, 2006 at 11:16 PM | PERMALINKIf a nation allows terrorists to openly wage war on their neighbor, then that nation must be treated as an enemy. If nations like Syria and Lebanon learn that lesson, it will be a better world. Posted by: Walter E. Wallis on July 19, 2006 at 7:54 PM | PERMALINK The Serbia example is so far from the present situation. It was one successful, if late, intervention to bring a halt to murderous ethnic cleansing. Negotiation was attempted and clear warning given, severally, and ignored. Here the real killing started after Israel began strikes. As ro Walter E; Wallis: Now plot the UK reaction, treatment of the problem etc. -- not all anything like complimentary -- and Israel, 1968 to present. I'm not directly comparing the two. Survival of the UK was never under threat. But the UK route was not escalatory. And, mostly, were careful not to use disproportionate force or punish a wider community. It's not all done yet but I'd say they're moving in the right direction. The IRA has become neutered as the catholic population found them a hinderance rather than help. In the Middle East there are factions on both sides of this problem who do not seek a resolution. The present actions suit them. Over the same time period, the Middle East has become more and more complicated, and more and more enflamed. I can't say you can blame one side more than the other, but we know where the root is. Israel has the strength and power in the region, plus the backing and guarantee of survival from the USA. If they wanted peace they could adopt the strategy to get there. From where I sit, it is very clear they do not.
it also prohibits Israel from attacking civilian targets, and they've done that. The fact of that matter is that any armed force will choose the form of fighting that suits it. Hezbollah would be slaughtered in open combat against Israelis, so they fight this classic guerilla war mode. But Israels, when they fight Hezbollah, do not send their soldiers into battle mano-a-mano, equally armed as pure ground units. No, they use their advantages, such as sophisticated planes and missiles as much as possible. Israel is within its right to do that, but please spare me the moral high ground for Israel --- each side is fighting the way that gives it an advantage. When Hagannah and the Irgun were fighting the British in the late 1940s, they did not take on the British mano-a-mano, but did hide in the civilian population as well. Posted by: Jont on July 19, 2006 at 11:24 PM | PERMALINKWhatever the morality of this war, Israel will eventually negotiate with Hezbollah - probably to arrange a prisoner exchange. They don't have any other choice, frankly, because they are not going to be able to beat Hezbollah militarily. That much is obvious. So why prolong the killing? Posted by: floopmeister on July 19, 2006 at 11:26 PM | PERMALINKWell, because (1) it would be larger, and (2) it would actually have a mandate to do something, rather than one that prevents it from doing anything but reporting violations. Do you have an example of an EU led force and/or Russia doing any of this? The EU was helpless in Kosovo and that's part of Europe. Why would Israel trust the EU? These are the peope who to this day consider Sharon a war criminal who should have been in jail rather than Prime Minister AND STILL see Arafat as the Nobel Peace prize winner. Even allowing for coalition members like the UK, Italy, Germany, Canada, Denmark, Poland, etc. already serving in Iraq or Afghanistan showing some offensive capabilities you can't expect them to fight on TWO fronts can you? That leaves Ireland, France, Spain and Sweden. That'll put the dear of Allah into Hezbollah. When Chirac suggested it the only logical conclusion of his purpose was to provide material for Leno. The Jews would trust the Saudi's before they'd trust Jacques Chirac. Posted by: rdw on July 19, 2006 at 11:27 PM | PERMALINKhttp://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y188/kafaraqgatri/IM001565.jpg
the yellow flag seen flying in the forground is the flag of Hezbollah. It is from places like this that Hezbollah has been fireing thier rockets Posted by: yonatan bryant on July 19, 2006 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINKI hope Israel demolishes Hezbollah. Posted by: Down goes Frazier on July 19, 2006 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINK
Does this mean then that Cuba would be justified in attacking the US ? Or the Soviets would be justified in attacking the US in the afghanistan days ? Or Nicaragua ? Or England would be justified in attacking the US for its occasional support for the IRA ? Or India because of the US's allowing camps that trained Sikh militants in the 1980s (2 of whom blew up an Indian passenger jet). And I see that the US is forbidding Turkey from taking action against Kurd rebels (who killed a dozen Turkish soldiers and civilians) in Northern Iraq ? Hypocrisy of the highest order. Posted by: erg on July 19, 2006 at 11:29 PM | PERMALINKThe way I see it - this either escalates into a full blown war, or there is a negotiated settlement. A morally murky, unsatisfying to all sides and probably bitterly resented settlement, to be sure. But there will be a settlement between Israel and Hezbollah. Both sides don't really have any choice. Except an escalating war that neither will win, of course. Posted by: floopmeister on July 19, 2006 at 11:31 PM | PERMALINK
And there are actually some in Europe who considered the late Begin a terrorist because he blew up the King George Hotel in Jerusalem, killing lots of Brits. Disgraceful. Posted by: erg on July 19, 2006 at 11:31 PM | PERMALINKOh, and Frazier? Wish all you want, boyo. Posted by: floopmeister on July 19, 2006 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINKWhat have nukes got to do with this? Posted by: floopmeister on July 19, 2006 at 11:33 PM | PERMALINKI heard a report on the CBS news that Hezbollah has denied Nasrallah's death. I thought perhaps that was a reason Israel chose to escalate its blitzkrieg of Lebanon: assassination of Hezbollah leadership. It's a kristallnact fortnight of death. Posted by: Hostile on July 19, 2006 at 11:34 PM | PERMALINKbut please spare me the moral high ground for Israel -- Israel clearly has the moral high ground. Your moral relativism is so silly it's laughable. Hazbollah aims for civilians. Israel tries to avoid them. Israel protects it's citizens but moving them to bomb shelters. Hezbollah needs civilain casualties to play this silly game so they block their citizens from going to safety. Your act is old and had been disabused long ago. This is why neither the UN nor the EU have been serious factors in middle east negotiations for decades and will not be factors this day. It is also why liberals are not taken seriously on security issues within the USA. It is nice to see Merkel split with Chirac confirming a recent pattern. Perhaps Germany will become more like the UK and Poland and Italy. Posted by: rdw on July 19, 2006 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINKWhich side has the nukes Oh, fuck off Cheney, you idiot. Posted by: on July 19, 2006 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINKIt's a kristallnact fortnight of death. Hardly, It's a continuation of sharons successful policies for ending the infatada. The donkeys don't count. It's the people telling the donkeys what to do. Look at all that blather from Osama about dying for Allah. It's pure PR for the masses too stupid to know better. The man has no intention of dying for allah. Quite the opposite. Same with these clowns running Hezbollah. They reach celeb status and the chance to make millions, if not billions like Arafat, and they're going to give that up? That's why hezbollah is trying to force average citizens to stay in their homes in Southern Lebanon while they're hidden in bunkers. They want a high death count so you can play your braindead moral equivalency game but they have no intention of being part of that count. If Israel can take a couple/few out you'll see a change in their ways. Posted by: rdw on July 19, 2006 at 11:43 PM | PERMALINK This is classic 4th generation warfare - hell, the Israelis wrote the damn book on it. You'd think they'd understand this. They, frankly, seem to have underestimated Hezbollah and are currently freaking out about it. They need to come to their senses and back off. Hezbollah's weakness is part of it's strength - precisely because it is not a state, it can't be defeated like one. It has no capital to capture, and it doesn't need to follow the same rules of war as the Israelis. Let's face it - if it did it would lose. So it fights intelligently - like a guerilla movement. It hides amongst the population. It has the support of that population. And it scores propaganda victories like taking out Israeli tanks, ships(!) and planes. Who cares how many rocket sites Israel destroys? All the supporters of Hezbollah will remember are that burning ship. Forget the issues of morality. The moral high ground won't stop the rockets falling on Israel. Where are the realists on the Israeli side - the experienced generals who understand that this is not the Somme, or the Battle of the Bulge? This is a nasty and immoral guerilla war, and bleating about the nasty way the militia is fighting won't bring 'victory' any closer. The longer this continues the more damage will be done before Israel, inevitably, seeks a settlement with Hezbollah. Hezbollah ain't going anywhere - everyone needs to realise that and work intelligently to come to the best settlement that recognises it. Fantasies of 'destroying Hezbollah' are exactly that. Posted by: floopmeister on July 19, 2006 at 11:45 PM | PERMALINKcmdicely: Well, because (1) it would be larger, and (2) it would actually have a mandate to do something, rather than one that prevents it from doing anything but reporting violations. 8,000 tea drinkers instead of 2,000? I don't see the difference, except the need to order more tea. As to UNIFIL, the point was that reporting the violations would lead to the violations ceasing. We know how well that worked. Do you honestly think that a new force, even leavened with EU troops, would take on the hard work to stop violations? That would mean, at some point, a credible use of force. Not just a show, not just a warning, but actual use of force. I honestly don't see Russian, German, French or Spanish troops doing that. Shoot at Hezbollah and take casualties? How long would it take for 'peace movements' in Europe to declare a 'quagmire' and demand the troops be brought home from southern Lebanon? Besides that, there's a bigger issue stopping Euro participation in a beefy UN force in southern Lebanon: logistics. Most of the European armies don't have the ability to support a substantial (e.g., brigade size or larger, brigade ~ 5,000 troops) outside their own borders. They don't have the logistical and transport ability. The Brits do but the Brits are busy. The French do not, and the rest of the Euro armies depend on either commercial hires or the U.S. to get their forces elsewhere (e.g., Afghanistan). A third problem: the Euro troops in southern Lebanon would acquire a new nickname, to be pronounced in Arabic: 'targets'. If you ran Hezbollah at the bidding of Iran, wholly dependent on Iran and Syria for your existence, you'd find a way to start killing Euro troops. Bonus points if you can blame the evil Zionists. Think Nasrallah would try that? I do. Add it up, dicely: the Euro participation would be 1) unpopular at home 2) expensive to support and 3) dangerous. I don't see it happening. Posted by: Steve White on July 19, 2006 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINKIsrael clearly has the moral high ground. Your moral relativism is so silly it's laughable. Hazbollah aims for civilians. Israel tries to avoid them. Israel should maybe try a little harder.... After seven days, 13 Israelis and about 230 Lebanese civilians had been killed in the war between Israel and Hezbollah. Close to 700 injured Lebanese and half a million displaced from their homes. Shortages of food and water, medicines, intentional power outages, with people trapped in the country due to the bombed out bridges and airports. Yep, it is silly to even try and compare this to two captured soldiers. Posted by: Windhorse on July 19, 2006 at 11:50 PM | PERMALINKIf Israel can take a couple/few out you'll see a change in their ways. Yep, once again missing the point entirely. The Iraq insurgency; the IRA; the Tamil Tigers; the VC; they never change their ways, rdw. The more you kill, the more their resolve is strengthened. Guerilla movements can lose every single damn battle they fight and still win the war in the end. That's why guerillas fight that way. I'm sorry if it doesn't match the cowboy movie playing in your head. Posted by: floopmeister on July 19, 2006 at 11:51 PM | PERMALINKRANDOM MURDERS Associated Press reports:
In fact, it now seems that the young victims were Arabs—always a likely outcome considering Nazareth’s large Arabic population. Hezbollah’s precision aiming skills have somehow deserted them. Guerilla movements can lose every single damn battle they fight and still win the war in the end. You'd think we'd have learned that lesson after our own humiliating defeat in Vietnam. Posted by: Stefan on July 19, 2006 at 11:59 PM | PERMALINKIsrael should maybe try a little harder.... Maybe the EU should have gotten religion about Hezbollah when they issued a resolution calling for them to be disarmed. Their calls now are a bit silly now don't you think? AS for the UN they've been himilaited enough. It's hard to beleive their poll numbers in the US can go any lower but they probably will. Jacques Chirac calling for a serious force in Lebanon is no more serious than Jerry Lewis calling for a serious force. The lebanese death toll is high because Hezbollah usese innocents as human shields and refuses to let them leave firezones. The Israeli's on the other hand evacuates their population. Posted by: rdw on July 20, 2006 at 12:00 AM | PERMALINKHostile: I was watching Brian Williams. When he finally got to the stem cell bill, he said: "Now we turn to politics and science, and President Bush's first ever veto while in office. It happened today. The President said no to what the House and Senate had passed." Are the American public THAT dumb?! First thing I thought was Schoolhouse Rock: I'm just a bill Boy: You mean even if the Whole Congress says you should be a law, the president can still say no? Bill: Yes, that's called a veto. If the president vetoes me, I have to go back to Congress and they vote on me again, and by that time you're so old... Boy: By that time it's very unlikely that you'll become a law. It's not easy to become a law, is it? Bill: No! http://www.school-house-rock.com/Bill.html Posted by: Thomas on July 20, 2006 at 12:00 AM | PERMALINKWilliam Kristol has claimed the people of Iran would embrace "The right use of targeted military Force"! You don't know whether to laugh or cry! Posted by: R.L. on July 20, 2006 at 12:01 AM | PERMALINKYou'd think we'd have learned that lesson after our own humiliating defeat in Vietnam. The lesson in Vietnam and confirmed here is the USA can fight and win querrilla wars militarily. The only question is the political will. Sharon crushed the insurgency and won. This 'war' has zero to do with Israel and Palestine. This is Jew versus Muslim. This is radical Islam. This is GWOT. Posted by: rdw on July 20, 2006 at 12:04 AM | PERMALINKYou'd think we'd have learned that lesson after our own humiliating defeat in Vietnam. America might not have learnt that lesson, but it appears others have - 'Vietnam Street' is apparently a popular piece of grafitti in Sadr City in Baghdad. The Mahdi Army got whipped the last two times it fought the US Army, yet I'm willing to bet it will still be there when the US has withdrawn. Doesn't matter how many years that will take - they aren't going anywhere. Posted by: floopmeister on July 20, 2006 at 12:05 AM | PERMALINKMaybe the EU should have gotten religion about Hezbollah when they issued a resolution calling for them to be disarmed. More to the point, maybe Israel should exercise restraint right now and quit killing and injuring Lebanese who have no control over Hezbollah. Posted by: Windhorse on July 20, 2006 at 12:06 AM | PERMALINKSharon crushed the insurgency and won. So the Isarelis are fighting their own shadows in Gaza? This 'war' has zero to do with Israel and Palestine. This is Jew versus Muslim. This is radical Islam. This is GWOT. This is High Noon at the OK Corral! BTW, is it just me or does GWOT sound like a DVD from the WWF? Posted by: floopmeister on July 20, 2006 at 12:07 AM | PERMALINKThe Mahdi Army got whipped the last two times it fought the US Army, yet I'm willing to bet it will still be there when the US has withdrawn. That might be. But we are withdrawing and the elected government will have a military force more powerful than Sadr they can use to kill him if necessary. It seems Sadr is good at killing sunni insurgents. He's giving them a reason to end their insurgency once the recognize they'll run out of people 1st. It will be up to Maliki to decide when he can bring these two groups together in peace or just kill them both. What you say covers Southern Afghanistan. The MSM is filled with stories the Taliban and Al Qaeda are resurgent in the region. They are also getting the crap kicked out of them in extremely valuable training exercies for the NATO members helping out and the emerging Afghan military. Eventually this rapidly growing country of 29M will be able to defend itself. Posted by: rdw on July 20, 2006 at 12:13 AM | PERMALINK | |